Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

naturally unemployed by Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

 

[Papageorgio]

Show me where I said what you stated or are you going to continue to lie? You keep lying about what I stand for, is it for diversion because you can't back up your line of BS? Either put up or shut up, I really don't care. I have lost my patience in dealing with morons such as yourself.

That is what the right wing prefers to do. Cut social services for the Poor so they can cut taxes for the rich.

Again, you failed to prove what was asked, you are being deceitful, dishonest and out and out lying. You said I prefer to cut social spending, again prove it.

ok. don't let me catch you preferring to cut social spending.

I want to cut all spending not just social.

all Talk?

I have no idea what your point is, have you ever thought about taking language courses to learn how to communicate?

 

[Papageorgio]

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

 

[hadit]

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Why? They don't impact each other. At will doesn't mean you're owed anything. It just means you can quit and they can fire you. That's it. Anything beyond that, you're just making up in your head, again.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

Why? They don't impact each other. At will doesn't mean you're owed anything. It just means you can quit and they can fire you. That's it. Anything beyond that, you're just making up in your head, again.

it means there is no work ethic from the Age of Iron, if it is at the will of either party.

 

[Papageorgio]

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

 

[easyt65]

They are fearful because, finally, they have to contend with an unabashed liberal progressive that's fighting for the people. Moreover, she's a woman, so they won't be able to just come out her any type of way. And the best part is, she know exactly how to counter their foolishness.

REALLY?

 

[danielpalos]

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

you are going to need a superior argument.

 

[Papageorgio]

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

you are going to need a superior argument.

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

 

[easyt65]

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

you are going to need a superior argument.

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

'Ellis Island, Ellis Island...."

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

you are going to need a superior argument.

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

employment is at the will of either party.

 

[hadit]

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

you are going to need a superior argument.

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

employment is at the will of either party.

Terminating employment is at the will of either party, that's it. They can't be forced to hire you and you can't be forced to work, but the taxpayers can't be forced to pay you as if you are working.

 

[Papageorgio]

There can be and there is. You lose your job, then fine however to keep receiving unemployment your new job is finding a new job and it isn't all that tough either.

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

you are going to need a superior argument.

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

employment is at the will of either party.

Which means my way is superior. Thank you.

 

[hadit]

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.

employment is at will.

there can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.

You can't be forced to work and the taxpayers can't be forced to pay you as if you were working.

Again, you're giving words meanings they don't have, because there's no other way to support your assertion.

At will just means that you can quit and they can fire you. That's it.

 

[danielpalos]

thank goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

you are going to need a superior argument.

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

employment is at the will of either party.

Terminating employment is at the will of either party, that's it. They can't be forced to hire you and you can't be forced to work, but the taxpayers can't be forced to pay you as if you are working.

that is why, it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. it is public policy. an public policy is an public use.

 

[Papageorgio]

Thank goodness we have a better plan in place.

you are going to need a superior argument.

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

employment is at the will of either party.

Terminating employment is at the will of either party, that's it. They can't be forced to hire you and you can't be forced to work, but the taxpayers can't be forced to pay you as if you are working.

that is why, it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. it is public policy. an public policy is an public use.

You haven't proved the natural rate of unemployment, all you have provided is your opinion. Lay out facts to persuade, give opinion if you are not sure.

 

[danielpalos]

you are going to need a superior argument.

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

employment is at the will of either party.

Terminating employment is at the will of either party, that's it. They can't be forced to hire you and you can't be forced to work, but the taxpayers can't be forced to pay you as if you are working.

that is why, it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. it is public policy. an public policy is an public use.

You haven't proved the natural rate of unemployment, all you have provided is your opinion. Lay out facts to persuade, give opinion if you are not sure.

it is an economic term. why are you arguing economics if you don't know the terms?

 

[Papageorgio]

No I don't the superior way is already in place, you need to have a valid argument to change the current method, so far your argument is lacking.

employment is at the will of either party.

Terminating employment is at the will of either party, that's it. They can't be forced to hire you and you can't be forced to work, but the taxpayers can't be forced to pay you as if you are working.

that is why, it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. it is public policy. an public policy is an public use.

You haven't proved the natural rate of unemployment, all you have provided is your opinion. Lay out facts to persuade, give opinion if you are not sure.

it is an economic term. why are you arguing economics if you don't know the terms?

So far my argument is superior and is the law. Let me know when you have a new argument.

 

[Pogo]

They are fearful because, finally, they have to contend with an unabashed liberal progressive that's fighting for the people. Moreover, she's a woman, so they won't be able to just come out her any type of way.

And the best part is, she know exactly how to counter their foolishness.

Yes Republicans, she's coming, and HELL'S coming with her!!!

Any other thoughts on why Republicans are left quaking in their boots over this. one. little. woman?

It still tickles me to the bone that these message board wags wailed and whined endlessly about "drain the swamp" and "upset the establishment". Soon as this young lady, a real person not a well-connected attorney type, ousted an entrenched establishment type and thereby did just that, they spun a 180 on "drain the swamp" so fast it made everybody's head spin. Suddenly they were all up in here defending the entrenched Democrat, the old guy.

Having it both ways is Priceless, but doing it that fast takes a real power of self-delusion.

And needles to say, zero of these armchair critics are actually within her district anyway.